Watching the Plaintiffs Bar’s Human Rights Watch

The assault on the plaintiffs bar from Congress and the courts has been well documented (click here and here). But as a defense lawyer recently told us, “The smart money isn’t counting them out because when the plaintiffs’ bar runs into new roadblocks they’re very creative at finding a path around them.”

Yesterday’s New York Times featured a relatively new plaintiffs-lawyer product line: international human rights cases. Typically brought in U.S. courts by public interest lawyers drawing attention to alleged abuses around the world, these cases are now being brought by class-action firms. Critics say they’re in it for the money.

Liptak highlights a case in federal court in Miami brought by Motley Rice on behalf of child camel jockeys in the Middle East. The plaintiffs allege they were abducted, enslaved and forced to ride camels to entertain the upper class. The case, like many other human-right litigations, was brought under the Alien Tort Statute, that allows federal courts to hear claims by foreigners who say they were injured in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. The defendants are sheiks from the United Arab Emirates.

It’s a bad thing that the class-action firms are getting into this area, William Dodge, a law professor at Hastings Law, told the Times. They don’t know as much about international law, and they don’t pick their battles as carefully. They’re motivated not just by a concern to promote human rights but also by money and a desire to use these kinds of suits to get a settlement.

Motley Rice’s John Eubanks disagreed. “We’re trying to right wrongs that have been committed, he told the Times. “It’s not about money. It’s about exacting some form of justice. He did concede it was in part about money. “There is a contingency fee, he said. These cases do cost a lot of money. We don’t get paid unless we collect.

It seems that the camel jockey case turns on a good old fashion civil procedure question. The Times reports that the plaintiffs say U.S. courts have jurisdiction over the two sheikhs because they own property here. The defendants, who are represented by Joseph Finnerty of DLA Piper, say they do not have enough connections to the United States.

About Law Blog

The Law Blog covers the legal arena’s hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It’s brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal’s staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.

Must Reads

Plaintiffs' lawyers dodged a bullet last year when the U.S. Supreme Court spared a quarter-century-old precedent that had served as the legal linchpin of the modern investor class-action case. Despite that win, a new report suggests that securities class actions have lost some of their firepower.

In a week in which images of Prophet Muhammad were connected to acts of terror and defiant expressions of freedom, a sculpture of the prophet of Islam inside the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn little notice.

Alan Dershowitz has vowed to slap a defamation suit against the two lawyers who claimed in a court document that Florida financier Jeffrey Epstein arranged sexual liaisons for him with an underage prostitute. Those lawyers have beaten him to the punch.

The salacious allegations against Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz that surfaced in a federal lawsuit involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have generated international attention. Drawing less coverage is the lawsuit itself -- a case with the potential to expand the rights of crime victims during federal investigations.